half-siblings for the annulment of the sale made to Cabrera of 28 ha. of land in Camarines Sur. Cabrera was advised by his counsel to accommodate any request for money from the judge so that latter won't give him a hard time
Sept. 1984: Pajares intimated that he needed money & so Cabrera gave him P1k.
After 2 mos/before Christmas of 84: Pajares & Cabrera met in front of the Naga Hall of Justice
& the Pajares told Cabrera that he needed money again. This time, Cabrera asked the assistance of the NBI in entrapping Pajares. He submitted 10 P100 bills for marking to be used in the entrapment. Such bills were marked w/orange flourescent crayon & dusted w/orange flourescent crayon by the NBI. A female agent bet 35 & 40 yrs old was sent to Naga to take part in the operations.
Jan. 22, 1985, 8:15 a.m. Cabrera told the judge that he decided not to settle the case but instead
he filed a MFR appointing a surveyor to delineate a portion of the land in dispute for his half- siblings in settlement. Then Pajares asked ―O ano ngayon ang atin.‖ Cabrera then got the envelope w/the marked money & gave it Pajares. Cabrera then rushed out of the chamber on the pretext that he forgot the keys in the car as a signal to the other NBI agents. As soon as they got in, Somera pointed out where the money was. It was inserted between the pages of a diary on the judge‘s table. Photos were taken. NBI Forensic Chemist Vallado established that the envelope & the money in it were those marked by the NBI. Pajares & his diary were both found positive of orange fluorescent powder. (so that‘s how they do it! Hehehe.)
Pajares‘ defense: he took the money thinking that it was for the surveyor. (yeah, yeah!) And he
claims that when he realized it was for the surveyor, he threw it back to Cabrera telling him, ―Bakit mo sa kin yan ibibigay? Ikaw na ang magbigay niyan kay Surveyor Palaypayon.‖ He further claims that the envelope fell on the open pages of his diary & that‘s where the NBI agents found it.
Issues & Ratio:
1. WON Pajares accepted the money knowing that it was given to him by reason of his office.
YES. Surveyor‘s fee was P2k & it would have been paid by Cabrera & the plaintiffs equally
at P500 each & not by Cabrera alone. Besides, Pajares had no reason to believe that the money was Cabrera‘s share of the surveyor‘s fees. His claim that a survey plan was needed for the final disposition of the case has no basis either because the plaintiffs were seeking the annulment of the sale, thus a survey was not necessary.
Evidence shows that judge did not really try to return the envelope to Cabrera but instead,
he placed it between the pages of his diary. Such evidence is based on:
INSTIGATION ..CABRERA v PAJARES [142 SCRA 127 919860] o Somera‘s testimony & affidavit.
o Photos showing that the envelope was placed between the pages of the judge‘s diary. A hand was shown in one of the photographs & was identified as that of NBI agent Artemio Sacaguing. Sacaguing confirmed this claiming that he was in the act of picking the diary from the table.
o Testimony of Manuel Tobias, chief agent of NBI sub-office in Legaspi
o Melquiades Volante, Pajares‘ branch clerk of court, corroborated Pajares‘ statement claiming that the judge did try to return the envelope to Cabrera. However, he issued another affidavit repudiating his first testimony. He claims that he was just pressured by Pajares to testify & that he did not really see the incident.
o Constancio Elquiero, a janitor, corroborates Pajares‘ statement. However, the testimonies of the 3 law enforcement agents should be given more credence since they‘re presumed to have acted in the reg performance of their duties.
o Photos appear to have been taken as soon as the agents got into the judge‘s chamber. Even the judge himself complained that as soon as the agents barged into his office, they began to take pictures. This rules out the possibility that the agents were responsible for putting the envelope in his diary. The photos look like snapshots rather than formal pictures.
The plan to entrap the judge was cleared w/Exec. Judge Hon. Juan Llaguno before whom Cabrera swore to his statement. Not likely for a judge to approve a frame-up of a colleague. Not likely either for NBI Regional Dir. Epimaco Velasco to authorize a frame-up considering that according to Pajares himself, Velasco is his close friend.
There was a discussion about how the envelope was folded, etc. But it‘s probable that the judge unfolded it when it was handed to him.
Pajares claims that he was outraged by the frame-up & that he protested. But the photos of his arrest show that he was smiling. He claims it was in derision (mockery, scorn) & that he‘s jolly by nature. But a smile is not a normal reaction to express outrage. (I don‘t quite understand why this should be mentioned. So what if he was smiling?)
2. Whether this was an entrapment or instigation operation. ENTRAPMENT. Instigation & entrapment distinguished:
o Instigation: officers of the law/their agents incite, induce, instigate or lure an accused into committing an offense w/c he otherwise wouldn‘t commit & has no intention of committing. Accused cannot be held liable. It‘s a trap for unwary innocent.
o Entrapment: criminal intent/design to commit the offense charged originates in the mind of the accused & law enforcement officials merely facilitate the commission of the crime, the accused cannot justify his conduct. Trap for the unwary criminal.
Instigation is not actually an issue since Pajares claims that this was a frame-up. However,
this claim has no basis as proven by the evidence presented. 3. WON Pajares is guilty of acts unbecoming of a judge.
NO. GUILTY ONLY OF INDIRECT BRIBERY. Evidence only shows that he accepted the
money & that he knew it was being given to him by reason of his office as per the investigation conducted by Investigating Justice Mendoza. Unfortunate since the Court has always stressed that members of the judiciary should display not only the highest integrity but must at all times conduct themselves in such manner as to be beyond reproach & suspicion. For the judge to return the people‘s regard of him as an intermediary of justice between 2 conflicting parties, he must be the first to abide by the law & weave an example for the others to follow. He should be studiously careful to avoid even the slightest infraction of law. But Mendoza‘s recommendation of merely suspending the judge for 2 yrs & 4 mos as the proper administrative penalty by virtue of Pajares‘ serious misconduct prejudicial to the judiciary & public interest cannot be upheld.
Court approves Mendoza‘s recommendation to acquit Pajares for lack of evidence of the 2nd
charge of having committed acts unbecoming of a member of the judiciary.
Held: Pajares dismissed from the service w/forfeiture of all retirement benefits & pay & w/prejudice to reinstatement in any branch of the gov‘t or any of its agencies or instrumentalities. Clerk of Court ordered to return the ten marked P100.00 bills to Cabrera.
INSTIGATION PEOPLE v DORIA (301 SCRA 668)
FACTS: Two civilian informants informed the PNP Narcom that one ―Jun was engaged in illegal
drug activities and the Narcom agents decided to entrap and arrenst ―Jun‖ in a buy-bust operation.
On the day of entrapment, PO3 Manlangit handed ―Jun‖ the marked bills and ―Jun‖ instructed
PO3 Manlangit to wait for him while he got the marijuana from his associate.
When they met up, ―Jun‖ gave PO3 something wrapped in plastic upon which PO3 arrested
―Jun‖. They frisked Jun but did not find the marked bills on him. ―Jun‖ revealed that he left the money at the house of his associate named ―neneth‖
They wen to Neneth‘s house. PO3 Manlangit noticed a carton box under the dinin table and
noticed something wrapped in plastic inside the box.
Suspicious, PO3 entered the house and took hold of the box and found that it ha 10 bricks of
what appeared to be dried marijuana leaves.
Simultaneously, SPO1 Badua recovered the marked bills from Neneth. The policemen
arrested Neneth and took both her and Jun, together with the coz, its contents and the marked bill and turned them over to the investigator at headquarters,
They were both convicted feloniously selling, administering and giving away to another 11
plastic bags of suspected marijuana fruiting tops, in violation of R.A 6425, as amended by RA 7659
ISSUE: WON Violeta Gaddao is liable.
Entrapment is recognized as a valid defense that can be raised by an accused & partakes the
nature of a confession & avoidance.
American federal courts and state courts usually use the ―subjective‖ or ―origin of intent‖ test
laid down in Sorrells v. U.S. to determine whether entrapment actually occurred. The focus of the inquiry is on the accused‘s predisposition to commit the offense is charged, his state of mind and inclination before his initial exposure to government agents.
Another test is the objective test where the test of entrapment is whether the conduct of the
law enforcement agenst was likely to induce a normally law-abiding person, other than one who is ready and willing, to commit the offense.
The objective test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported transaction
must be clearly & adequately shown. Courts should look at all factors to determine the predisposition of an accused to commit an offense in so far as they are relevant to determine the validty of the defense of inducement.
In the case at bar, Gaddao was not caught red-handed during the buy-bust operation to give
ground for her arrest uner Sec. 5a of Rule 113. She was not committing any crime. Contrary to the finding of the TC, there was no occasion at all for Gaddao to flee from the policement to justify her arrest in ―hot pursuit‖
Neither could her arrest ne justified under second instance of ―personal knowledge‖ in Rule 113
as this must be based upon probable cause which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds for suspicion. Gaddao was arrested solely on the basis of the alleged indentification made by her co-accused. PO3 Manlangt, however, declared in his direct examination that appellant Doria named his co-accused in response to his query as to where the marked money was. Doria did not point to Gaddao as his associate in the drug business, but as the person with whom he lfet the marked bills. This identification does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Gaddao conspired with Doria in pushing drugs, If there is no showing that the person who effected the warrantless arrest had, in his own right, knowledge of the acts implicating the person arrested to the perpetration of a criminal offense, the arrest is legally objectionable.
Furthermore, the fact that the box containing about 6 kilos of marijuana was found in Gaddao‘s
house does not justify a finding that she herself is guilty of the crime charged.
The prosecution thus had failed to prove that Gaddao conspired with Doria in the sale of the
said drug. Thus, Gaddao is acquitted
EFFECT OF PARDON RPC, Article 23
Effect of pardon by the offended party. - A pardon by the offended party does not extinguish
criminal action except as provided in article 344 of this Code; but civil liability with regard to the interest of the injured party is extinguished by his express waiver.
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES RPC, Art. 6 (3)
Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. — (3)There is an attempt when the offender
commences the commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.
RPC, Art. 7
When light felonies are punishable. — Light felonies are punishable only when they have been
consummated, with the exception of those committed against person or property.
RPC, Art. 16
Who are criminally liable. — The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies:
1. Principals. 2. Accomplices. 3. Accessories.
The following are criminally liable for light felonies: 1. Principals
2. Accomplices.
RPC, Art. 20
Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. — The penalties prescribed for accessories
shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article.
RPC, Art. 247
Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. — Any legally married
person who having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.
If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt from punishment.
These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents with respect to their daughters under eighteen years of age, and their seducer, while the daughters are living with their parents.
Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or shall
otherwise have consented to the infidelity of the other spouse shall not be entitled to the benefits of this article.
RPC, Art. 280
Qualified trespass to dwelling. — Any private person who shall enter the dwelling of another
against the latter's will shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos. If the offense be committed by means of violence or intimidation, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
The provisions of this article shall not be applicable to any person who shall enter another's dwelling for the purpose of preventing some serious harm to himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a third person, nor shall it be applicable to any person who shall enter a dwelling for the purpose of rendering some service to humanity or justice, nor to anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inn and other public houses, while the same are open.
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES RPC, Art. 332
. Persons exempt from criminal liability. — No criminal, but only civil liability shall result from the
commission of the crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by the following persons:
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line.
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the same shall have passed into the possession of another; and
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.
The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable to strangers participating in the commission of the crime.
RPC, Art. 344
Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts of
lasciviousness. — The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon
a complaint filed by the offended spouse.
The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including both the guilty parties, if they are both alive, nor, in any case, if he shall have consented or pardoned the offenders.
The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been expressly pardoned by the above named persons, as the case may be.
In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the offender with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. The provisions of this paragraph shall also be applicable to the co-principals, accomplices and accessories after the fact of the above-mentioned crimes.
PEOPLE v OYANIB [354 SCRA 196 (2001)]